QUESTION 3: ELIMINATE POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARIES FOR STATE ELECTIONS AND INSTEAD ESTABLISH A SINGLE, ALL-PARTY PRIMARY. SEVERAL STATES ALREADY HAVE THIS ALL-PARTY PRIMARY SYSTEM WHICH HAS EARNED THE NICKNAME “JUNGLE PRIMARY.”

This question asks voters if they approve of a bill that would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the all-party primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

The proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the prior state primary. It would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the all-party primary.

WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL
“Question 3 makes Massachusetts elections more competitive and opens the door to new, fresh voices,” Danielle Allen, chair of the “Yes” on 3 Campaign told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Right now, too many popular candidates never make it past low-turnout primaries and gatekeepers, and in 2024, 61% of our elections had just one name on the ballot. Under Question 3, every voter and every candidate takes part in the same primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to November, where they face a much larger, more diverse and more representative general election electorate.”

Allen continued, “Opponents are trying to scare voters because the status quo suits them and their incumbent friends, but the truth is that all-party primaries give voters more choices; produces a dynamic, voter-driven general election instead of one decided months earlier by a small slice of insiders; incentivizes officials to deliver; and is familiar to them already — it’s how we vote in mayoral and municipal elections across the commonwealth. Massachusetts is ready for a democracy that inspires action from our elected leaders to solve the numerous problems we’re facing — on affordability, health care, housing and too many more. “Yes” on Question 3 has a strong, broad coalition of voting rights, civil rights, grassroots, labor, climate and civic groups, along with former and current officials, and is growing every week. With majority support across demographics, we’re building real momentum toward November.”

WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL
“Private equity executives are trying to buy a more favorable election system and making promises they never intend to keep, and once they rig the system in their favor, it becomes nearly impossible to undo,” Berg Powers, chair of Voter Rights MA told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “The overwhelming majority of this campaign’s funding comes from obscenely wealthy individuals, which is why this isn’t a grassroots movement. It’s a hedge fund with a ballot question. Independent voters are not shut out of party primaries today, because unenrolled voters can already choose either party’s ballot without joining a party.”

Berg continued, “And Question 3 doesn’t fix the real competition problem in Massachusetts, where people don’t run for office because of time and money, since it makes campaigns longer and more expensive. Unions, community groups and everyday activists from across the political spectrum have come together to urge a No vote on 3, and as voters learn what’s at stake, they’ll join the people and groups they trust most.”

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, from both sides of the question. Each side was allowed to submit up to a 150-word statement supporting their position.

IN FAVOR:
“Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders. But for years insiders have held the advantage. Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed. They can take voters for granted and ignore important issues like affordable housing, energy costs, better schools and the audit 72% of us demanded.

All-party primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen. All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for office.

More competition means more accountability. Legislators who know voters can replace them. Listen to us and deliver real results.

Vote Yes on Question 3 for accountability and competition.”

AGAINST:
“Similar top two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as candidates of color and women. Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources.

This proposal would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates to advance to November — even if they belong to the same party — reducing competition, lowering voter participation, worsening inequities and narrowing debate.

Massachusetts voters deserve real choices, not a system that rewards money and name recognition over community support. Vote No.”

WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES:

A “Yes” vote would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single all-party primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters can vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election.

A “No” would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.